Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Nebeker Karhohs (Second Nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kayla Nebeker Karhohs

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not qualify for inclusion under WP:BIO. So she died of cancer, many people do. Many other more famous people died of the brain cancer this young woman died from (Ivan Noble, for one). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Arguably there are "multiple, nontrivial sources", but the overall impression is that this individual was not notable because many people unfortunately die young from cancer, and WP is not a memorial. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I really don't see the notablitliy here. Seems to me that a local college newspaper has written about the person, as well as a local newspaper, and a local news station has done a bit about it. This, to me, does not establish enough notability. Perhaps if there is a Wikipedia: Reno, Nevada edition it could be an article there. --Son 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. SWik78 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How big or long running would the festival have to be to give her notability?Red Fiona 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Without limiting the notability requirements to one specific criterion, this article, in my opinion, would have to overcome temporary notability first in order to consider anything else as a proof of notability. It may or it may not become notable but until then Wikipedia should not be treated as a crystal ball.SWik78 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball Delete per WP:N and lack of "keep" votes. A google search returns 13 results (go to the second page for the actual count of 13) with similar results omitted. First two pages are, in order, Wikipedia's page and their site. Subsequent items are about the disease, or appear to be blogs/not reliable. --Thinboy00 @9, i.e. 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on the article's merits, I'd like to note that WP:SNOW generally takes a clearer consensus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • 5 Deletes, 0 Keeps. How much of a consensus do we need, Disavian? Arbiteroftruth 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Typically more than that, is all I'm saying. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Where did you come up with 5 deletes? I'm only counting 4 deletes and 1 comment. SWik78 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Didn't you leave me out? I proposed this deletion, so my vote is an automatic Delete. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Good point. I stand corrected. SWik78 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.